Friday, April 22, 2011

The gist of the story is that Colin Humphreys, a metallurgist and materials scientist at the University of Cambridge, claims that Jesus and the Synoptics were working with one (older) calendar, according to which Passover fell that year on the Wednesday, while John was working with the standard calendar, according to which Passover fell that year on the Friday evening / Sabbath.

This is an ingenious proposal that attempts to squeeze every element in the Gospel Passion chronology into a harmonized whole. If I have understand the case properly, and I have not yet had a chance to read the book, the effective timetable, on Humphreys's scheme, looks like this:

This scheme of contrasting Passovers attempts to resolve the conflict over the date of the crucifixion. It attempts to harmonize all the varying statements in the Gospels. When the Synoptics talk about Jesus eating the Passover, they are talking about Passover on an old calendar. When John talks about events before Passover , he is talking about Passover on the "official" calendar. So both types of statements, eating the meal before the Passover and during the Passover, can be harmonized.

It is a neat solution and I'll have to read the book to get the detail but on the basis of the sketch, let me outline my problems with the proposal:

(1) One of Humphreys's primary concerns is to avoid the idea that the Gospels "contradict themselves". The concern is one that characterizes apologetic works and it is not a concern that I share. Nevertheless, if it is to be a concern, then it needs to be reiterated that as they stand, the Gospels do "contradict themselves" and this proposal does not succeed in avoiding the contradiction. What the Synoptics are calling "the Passover" is set on a different day from what John is calling "the Passover". The Synoptics do not distinguish the Passover that Jesus is celebrating from the Passover that everyone else was celebrating (e.g. Mark 14.1-2) and John shows no awareness of an alternative Passover date. What Humphreys's proposal does is to try to explain the contradiction in the light of a proposed underlying history; it does not remove the contradiction.

(2) It is not just Jesus and his disciples in the Synoptics who think that it is Passover. It is Pilate and the crowds too (Mark 15.6,8).

(3) Proposals that attempts to harmonize discrepant accounts usually end up placing strain on the narrative(s) at other points. This proposal is no exception. The pay-off, for Humphreys, in the Wednesday evening Last Supper is that this allows more time for the trials to take place. But according to Mark, the trial before the High Priest and the Sanhedrin took place on the same night as the Last Supper and not the next day. It receives a marked emphasis:

Mark 14.30: Amen I say to you: Today, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.

Peter's denial in Mark is famously intertwined with the trial before the High Priest -- it is taking place at night, that night, before the cock crows (Mark 14.53-72).

(4) The clear indication is that the events of Mark 15 follow straight on from the end of Mark 14, beginning "Early" (πρωΐ,15.1) without an additional unmentioned day intervening.

(5) Humphreys is concerned that a night trial before the Sanhedrin would be illegal. It is true that this concern is often repeated in the literature, but the basis for it is weak. The authoritative work on Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin by Jacob Neusner concludes that that tractate is not a useful guide to what obtained in Jerusalem in the pre-70 period. It is an idealized re-imagination of what went on before 70.

(6) Humphreys is also concerned about the rushed timetable that is implied. I don't share this concern for two reasons, historical and liturgical. The historical concern: we should be wary of importing our own ideas of what a "trial" ought to include. In the ancient world, these "trials" were often summary, ad hoc, ruthless affairs. The liturgical issue: If early Christians were remembering the Passion as they celebrated Passover, it is easy to imagine how the retelling compressed the narrative. The apparently tight timetable is more about liturgical remembering than historical memory.

Now it may be that some of my concerns are dealt with in the book, which I hope to read in due course. But on the basis of the press releases and summary articles, I think the proposal is flawed for these reasons.

It's a great pleasure to read Matt Page's Few Thoughts on The Passion. It is three years now since it aired on BBC1 in Easter 2008 and there is still no sign of its appearance here on HBO. I remember the producer, Nigel Stafford-Clark, mentioning that it might be "some time" before HBO screened it but I didn't imagine it would be four (or more) years. And sadly, it will do so now after the death of the writer Frank Deasy in 2009.

I have only re-watched parts of it again since 2008 and Matt's post reminds me that it would be rewarding to go back and watch it in toto again. He makes an interesting point about how time has changed the perception of several of the actors. One that I would add would be Ben Daniels who was a brilliant Caiaphas in The Passion and who, since then, has become a staple of Law and Order (UK), now already in its fourth series. I started watching that in part out of curiosity to see Ben Daniels in another role (and in part to see Freema Agyeman, Martha from Doctor Who, acting alongside him) and I have come to love the programme. Daniels plays a role a little similar to Caiaphas, a lawyer working for the CPS, though perhaps a little less stern and a little more kindly in this.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

The second Passion Podcast this year is NT Pod 54: The Horror of Crucifixion It looks at the archaeological and literary evidence and reflects on its relevance to the Passion Narratives in the Gospels.

In Our Time today, on Radio 4, discussed the Pelagian Controversy. Caroline Humfress, Martin Palmer and John Milbank were in the studio with Melvyn Bragg. If you are not familiar with the programme, you might be pleased to know that it is available as a podcast.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Around this time of year, as Easter approaches and as I get to the end of my latest Historical Jesus class, I like to theme my podcasts with the Passion. One of the latest episodes is NT Pod 53: Are the Passion Narratives "Prophecy Historicized"? It discusses the origins of the Passion Narratives, contrasting John Dominic Crossan's theory of "prophecy historicized" with the idea that they are actually "tradition scripturalized".

For those who would like to explore further, I have an article out on the topic and I've reproduced it on the web for those who don't have access to the book:

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Before Simcha Jacobovici's Nails of the Cross documentary has even aired, it looks like the story has died. Where news stories have continued to appear, they generally have riders like "Experts doubt it", which is encouraging to see. When the Washington Post weighed in on Friday, they quoted Gabriel Barkay to the following effect:

"There’s no proof whatsoever that they originate in the tomb of Caiaphas,” he said. “It’s all conjecture."

Even if we were sure that these nails came from the Caiaphas tomb, and even if we were sure that it is Caiaphas the High Priest's tomb, it is of course bonkers to assume that these nails would have been the nails from Jesus' crucifixion. But Barkay's comment makes clear that there is nonsense on top of nonsense here.

I took a look at the History Channel's schedules and noticed that they are broadcasting this documentary at 11pm, which hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement!

Thursday, April 14, 2011

I know that I should leave the story alone, but perhaps I may draw attention to at least one element in the reports that illustrate the problem with Simcha Jacobovici's absurd claims to have found the nails that crucified Jesus. Time Magazine's report features this statement:

The Nails of the Cross dwells on 1st century non-Gospel writings that portray Caiaphas as an eventual follower of Christ.

Now it is of course possible that the Time reporter has misunderstood something in the documentary, but I would not be surprised if this kind of nonsense is present given that the Lost Tomb of Jesus website features several clams of this kind that are demonstrably false.

So let us be clear. There are no "first century non-Gospel writings that portray Caiaphas as an eventual follower of Christ". In fact there are precious few first century sources that mention Caiaphas at all. He appears by name in Matthew, Luke and John (and arguably as the unnamed "high priest" in Mark 14) and he appears twice, briefly, in Josephus's Antiquities 18. As far as I am aware, that is it for the literary record. In none of these, nor in any other writings from the early centuries does Caiaphas become a follower of Christ.

Indeed the scarcity of the literary record on Caiaphas draws attention to one of the many other difficulties with the claim about the nails, that Caiaphas was only associated with the crucifixion of one man, for example here:

Caiaphas, infamous for the crucifixion of only one man, could have asked his offspring to place the nails in his ossuary, speculated the filmmaker.

This idea, of Caiaphas's infamy in relation to Jesus, is a feature in most of the articles that have been written about it. But we simply don't know anything about other crucifixions that Caiaphas may or may not have been involved with. Josephus does not associate him with any crucifixions, but he does not associate him with anything much at all. And I'd have guessed that the Romans crucified other Jews in Judea in Caiaphas's time as High Priest too (c. 18-36).

And in fact our sources, meager as they are, do mention two more crucifixions carried out by the Romans while Caiaphas was high priest, of two men (brigands, insurgents) along with Jesus (Mark 15.27 and par.). I think it is historically naive to imagine that these were the only three crucifixions carried out in the eighteen year period from 18 to 36, while Caiaphas was high priest.

That is just for starters, and already treats the claims with more respect than they are due.

Jim West draws attention to some extraordinary comments made by Simcha Jacobovici in the Jewish Chronicle Online, My Nails Were From Jesus' Cross, in which he responds to the derision with which his claim has been met:

Mr Jacobovici reacted by telling the JC: "The minute someone says anything significant about the New Testament, the immediate response is to scoff, not to study it." He believes experts prefer to avoid making bold claims relating to the New Testament because it brings them under such intense scrutiny - and they resent it when others do so.

Perhaps, then, I should illustrate our difficulty. In 2007, Jacobovici made a documentary in which he claimed to have located the lost tomb of Jesus, in Talpiot, Jerusalem. Many of us spent a great deal of time patiently, carefully and calmly researching the claims and explaining why they were found wanting. As one element in that enterprise, I perhaps stupidly took it on myself to try expose a series of errors, inaccuracies, false statements, sensationalist claims and nonsense on the Jesus Family Tomb Website. I labelled the post Jesus Family Tomb Website: Errors and Inaccuracies and listed seventeen of these, with explanations of where the problems lay. There was no scoffing, no ridicule, no derision, just a calm and patient explanation of errors and inaccuracies.

It is now over four years since that post appeared and to this day every single one of those errors and inaccuracies remains on the Jesus Family tomb website. Two years ago, I again drew attention to the post and the errors, with some reflection on our failure to make an impact.

What I think this illustrates is that it is outrageous for Simcha Jacobovici to suggest that scholars immediately scoff at his ideas without examining them. On the contrary. If anything, our mistake is that we spend far too much of our valuable time attempting to react in a scholarly fashion to material that would be lucky to get a passing grade if it were submitted to us by one of our students.

Since the careful, detailed and patient attempts at engaging appear to make no impact whatsoever, I think it is entirely reasonable that this time we react with the ridicule that the claims deserve.

If only it were 1 April, and if only Jacobovici had that degree of self-awareness. Alas, he appears to be serious and alas, the media happily report the story, with pictures of Simcha proudly but earnestly showing the nail to the camera.

This one really is breathtaking. I suppose the major encouragement here is that it could go beyond self-parody, encouraging the public to treat this kind of "archeoporn" (Jonathan Reed's term) with the ridicule it deserves.

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Update (Saturday 2.11pm): Daniel O. McClellan brings into a post of its own something that he had previously noted in comments, to the following effect:

Besides the numerous reasons Elkington’s credibility has been eradicated, at least one portion of the bronze plate analyzed by Thonemann was pressed or cast from the exact same die or mold as one of the lead plates currently making the rounds. Below you can see the tree from the old bronze plate and the tree from one of the newer lead plates. They are absolutely identical. They ca me from the exact same die or mold. The lead plates are forgeries just like the bronze plates.

Friday, April 01, 2011

It has been fascinating to see how the story of the lead codices has been examined on the blogs and already found wanting. I agree with James McGrath:

The biblioblogging community should be proud. It seems that yet again the collective effort of scholars and other interested parties with blogs has shed more light on an issue than the media or any one individual managed to, and has done so quickly and effectively. The next time someone asks "Why blog?" I will mention this as an example of the sort of thing that makes blogging worthwhile for all.

If you have not been following the latest developments, here are the key recent links (i.e. yesterday and today) in the blogs, all of which also have additional links:

CHAPEL HILL -- The University of North Carolina is set to hire William Franklin Graham III as the founding director of what is believed to be the nation's first department of irreligious studies. Amidst campus-wide budget reductions and strategic program cuts, Dean Bernard Manakin of UNC's College of Arts and Sciences announced this bold new initiative: Establishment of a Department of Irreligion . . .

Not surprisingly, Bart Ehrman is mentioned in the article:

Of course, we could not hire someone who believes the Bible to teach the Bible. That would simply be wrong. We need people who can be objective about the document; obviously believers cannot do that," said Manakin.

One of the recent additions to UNC's Board Of Trustees, Gilbert Aussenzeit, had encouraged the university to place Dr. Bart Ehrman, the current chairman of the Department of Religion, as head of the new Department of Irreligion.

"As one of America's leading unbelievers, I thought that Ehrman would be the perfect fit, but, boy, was I quickly disabused of that notion," said Aussenzeit, a businessman from Fuquay-Varina.

"As Chancellor [Holden] Thorp explained it to me, it's OK to have a physics professor who believes in Newton's laws of motion, or a chemistry prof who accepts the periodic table, but it doesn't work that way in the humanities. There's no way you can have a religion professor who is religious," said Aussenzeit.